Pragmatics 9:1.51-74 (1999) International Pragmatics Association SITUATED POLITENESS: MANIPULATING HONORIFIC AND NON-HONORIFIC EXPRESSIONS IN JAPANESE CONVERSATIONS Shigeko Okamoto 1. Introduction* While the theories of linguistic politeness advanced by Lakoff (1973), Leech (1983), and Brown and Levison (1987) have been influential and spurred great interest in ensuing research on this topic, limitations of their theories have also been pointed out by many scholars: These theories do not consider cultural and situational variability in the meanings of politeness; politeness rules and maxims are proposed without detailed descriptions of when and how to use them; certain speech acts or linguistic expressions are assumed to be inherently polite/impolite (or face-threatening); and politeness of individual utterances rather than connected discourse has been the focus of study (Hymes 1986; Blum-Kulka 1987; Fraser 1990; Gu 1990; Watts et al. 1992; Agha 1994, etc.). In this study, I maintain that expressions of politeness are relative to specific social contexts as well as to the speakers' ideas about politeness. An adequate account of linguistic politeness thus requires a close examination of the relationship among linguistic expressions in discourse, speakers' ideas about politeness, and social contexts. As a case in point, the present study examines Japanese conversations with regard to the use of honorifics--one of the most important means of expressing politeness in Japanese. Brown and Levinson (1987) treat honorifics as outputs of a negative politeness strategy -- Give deference -- for redressing face-threatening acts. However, it has been pointed out that every utterance in Japanese requires a choice between honorific and non-honorific expressions, which, therefore, cannot be regarded as a matter of politeness strategies applicable only to certain potentially face-threatening speech acts (Matsumoto 1988). Further, while politeness in languages like English is mostly thought to concern speakers' volitional strategies, the use of honorifics and other formal expressions in Japanese is often said to be governed by rigorous situation-based rules, or conventions. Given certain social situations, it is argued, honorifics are obligatory or expected; honorifics grammatically encode certain social relations recognized in the context, such as status difference and degree of intimacy (e.g. Ide 1989; Tokunaga 1992). Hill et al. (1986) and Ide (1989) treat this kind of linguistic politeness as a matter of Discernment rather than Volition. While Volition "allows the speaker a considerably more active choice" in linguistic expressions of politeness, Discernment refers to "the almost automatic observation of socially-agreed-upon rules"; that is, in the Discernment aspect of politeness, "the speaker can be considered to submit passively to the requirement of the system. That is, once certain factors of addressee and situation are noted, the selection of an appropriate 52 Shigeko Okamoto linguistic form and/or appropriate behavior is essentially automatic" (Hill et al. 1986: 348). As pointed out by Watts et al. (1992: 4), politeness characterized by the notion of Discernment corresponds to what Fraser calls the "social-norm" view of politeness. To what extent social norms coincide with actual behaviors is an empirical question. As I will discuss in this paper, a close examination of this question reveals that the nature of "socially-agreed-upon rules" is unclear, and that it is highly questionable whether the use of such linguistic forms as honorifics is an automatic, or passive, response to the contextual features stipulated by the normative rules. 2. Relating Honorifics Directly to Social Context The scope of Japanese honorifics is broad, but in this paper I will focus on two major categories: the so-called referent honorifics (sozai keego) and the addressee honorifics (taisha-keego, or teenee-go 'polite form'). I will also analyze only verbal expressions, and not nominal expressions. Referent honorifics are usually subdivided into two types: subject honorifics (sonkee-go 'respectful form') and object honorifics (kenjoo-go 'humble form').1 For example, in example (1) o-V-ni nari is regarded as a subject honorific used to refer to the subject-referent's action, and the form -mash(ita) an addressee honorific used for the addressee. In (2), the form o-V-shi is an object honorific, while the form -mash(ita) is an addressee honorific. In (3) neither a referent nor an addressee honorific is used. (1) Tanaka-sensee ga kore o o- kaki- ni nari- mash- ita.2 Prof. SM this OM write SH AH Pst 'Professor Tanaka wrote this.' (2) Watashi ga sensei no nimotsu o o- mochi-shi- mash- ita. I SM Prof. GM luggage OM carry OH AH Pst 'I carried the professor's luggage (for him).' (3) Tanaka-kun ga kore o ka- ita. Mr. (informal) SM this OM write N-SH N-AH Pst 'Tanaka wrote this.' In examples (1) and (3) the subject-referent and the addressee are different persons, but the two may be the same person, as in (4). (4) Sensee ga kore o o- kaki- ni nat- ta n desu ka. Prof. SM this OM write SH Pst AH Q 'Did you (Professor) write this?' In (4) the subject honorific o-V-ni nat(ta) is used to refer to the addressee's action and the addressee honorific desu is also used for the addressee. Note that the subject honorific form o-V-ni naru and the object honorific form o-V-suru are both productive and can be used for many verbs (e.g. o-yomi-ni naru 'read'; o-machi-suru 'wait'). The form V-(r)areru is another productive subject honorific form. Some verbs, however, do not take these Situated politeness 53 productive forms, but instead have suppletive forms (e.g. meshiagaru, a subject honorific, and itadaku, an object honorific, for taberu 'eat'). One prevailing position views the use of honorifics as determined by features of the context, in particular interpersonal distance. Both referent and addressee honorifics are commonly said to be used in reference to the relevant individual who is perceived as distant from the speaker. Interpersonal distance is usually characterized in terms of a status difference and/or the degree of intimacy, or a uchi-soto (in-group/out-group) distinction (e.g. Harada 1976; Hinds 1978; Ikuta 1983; Makino & Tsutsui 1986; Jorden & Noda 1987; Shibatani 1990; Tokunaga 1992; Sukle 1994; Wetzel 1994). While interpersonal distance is considered the major determining factor for the use of honorifics, other factors (e.g. formality of the setting, type of genre, means of communication, topic) have also been noted (Neustupny 1978; Ide 1982, 1989; Makino & Tsutsui 1986; Minami 1987; Matsumoto 1988). For example, Makino and Tsutsui (1986) point out that honorific expressions are "used at such occasions as ceremonies, public speeches and public announcements" (44). Indirect means of communication, such as use of telephone and letter, are said to increase the use of honorifics (e.g. Neustupny 1978; Minami 1987). Gender has also been noted as an influential variable in that women are believed to use more polite or formal expressions (e.g. honorifics) than men (Jorden and Noda 1987; Ide 1990; Niyekawa 1991). Further, it has been pointed out that the choice of honorifics may require a simultaneous consideration of two or more social factors (Ide 1982; Minami 1987; Matsumoto 1988; Shibatani 1990). These previous studies are insightful and help us begin to understand the true complexity of honorific usage in Japanese. It merits attention, however, that the majority of these studies rely either on the researchers' own introspection or on self-report questionnaires. Both methodologies lack sufficient empirical basis in actual speech data. The data obtained by means of self-report surveys may reflect social desirability--or how the subjects think they should speak rather than how they actually speak. Further, most previous studies offer essentially static accounts that link honorific forms straightforwardly to a certain social attribute (or attributes) of the context. Thus, a single honorific form (e.g. the referent honorific form o-V-ni naru) is commonly regarded as a marker, or direct index, of a contextual feature (or features), in particular a social relation. In other words, a feature like [+social distance] (or [+higher status], [-intimate], [+soto/out-group], etc.) associated with a particular NP or individual in the context is considered to trigger the use of an honorific form. This process is sometimes compared to the subject-verb agreement in European languages. Wetzel (1994), for instance, states that "Japanese verbs obligatorily 'conjugate' for uchi/soto in much the same way that Indo-European languages conjugate for person" (83). Similarly, Ide (1989) claims that "the concord of honorifics [with the subject NPs] is socio-pragmatically obligatory" (227). According to this view of honorifics, the speaker passively responds to a certain contextual cue specified by the canonical rule. However, a number of recent studies based on actual conversational data demonstrate substantial situational and individual diversity in the use of honorifics (Miller 1989; Okamoto 1997a, b, 1998; Cook 1996, in press). The view of honorifics as direct indexes of contextual features seems unable to adequately account for the complexity and diversity of actual uses of honorifics. For example, the treatment of honorifics as markers of status differences cannot explain their reciprocal use, especially the fact that honorifics are commonly used by a higher-status person to a lower-status person; this treatment must 54 Shigeko Okamoto also assume that in the non-reciprocal use of honorifics not only honorifics but also non-honorific forms are markers of status differences. On the other hand, the treatment of honorifics as markers of non-intimate/soto relationships cannot account for the non-reciprocal use of honorifics, because it must assume that two persons perceive the same relationship differently, as non-intimate/soto vs. intimate/uchi.